That is right he is a Non-Executive independent Director.
- Mike does not receive any performance based remuneration.
- Mike was a shareholder prior to his appointment, which mind you was by other share holders.
- Having a large share holding, which was purchased on market and in various placements only further aligns Mike's interests with shareholder interests.
- Given the fact that the short term bridge loan allowed the company to proceed without and additional capital raise is definitely in the best interests of the company.
- The bridge loan (partially provided by Mike) did not have any adverse effect on the company which would otherwise have arisen should the company have taken a short term bridge loan from a third party.(if shareholders had concerns in relation to the arrangement, we would have raised them)
- The bridge options exercise price is a significant premium to the share price at the time they were launched and still at a premium to today's share price, there is a put attached meaning that option holders are committed to the exercise on funding and cannot walk away.
I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever in relation to Mike's independence, it seems all the other shareholder who voted at the AGM have no issue either.
If they had concerns, they would have voted against resolutions:
3. His Re-election as Director [98,463,924 For, 11,732 Against]
7. Issue of Shares to Mike [83,709,573 For, 389,666 Against]
8. Issue of Shares to Mike's son Ben [83,009,573 For, 389,666 Against]
9. Issue of Shares to Mike's son Tom [83,007,018 For, 389,666 Against]
10. Issue of Shares to Mike's son Chris [83,709,573 For, 389,666 Against]
13. Issue of Bridge Options to Mike [83,746,573 For, 344,839 Against]
15. Potential issue of shares to repay bridge loan (if 15c options wasn't enough) [83,746,573 For, 344,839 Against]
As demonstrated above and in the results of the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, there is clearly significant shareholder support so i'm not sure why you want to know
"What's people's thoughts, given increasing financial arrangements can he be truely seen as an "Independent Director", which I believe was the supposed motivation of the Large shareholder group in having him elected."
Should he resign if he no longer considers himself to fit the role of "Independent Director"? I'm sure he would if he thought it were necessary, however given the explanation above particularly in relation to his arrangements with the company, I'd say that every arrangement is/has been at the very least at arm's length and therefore his independence is maintained.
(20min delay)